Top 10 Bombers of WWII
Вставка
- Опубліковано 22 чер 2021
- Check out the Military playlist from the Buzz: • 10 Most Expensive Mili...
------------
Video description: World War II saw the beginning of the widespread use of advanced bombers which dispensed with defensive weapons to be able to attain higher speed, range and having good performance. These aircraft have proved to be very successfully and have played a major role during that time. In this video we present the List of the 10 Greatest Bombers of world war 2 and this list we will also include medium bombers, light bombers or even torpedo or dive bombers.
Enjoy watching. Cheers!
------------
Credits:
www.angelfire.com/fm/odyssey/...
commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Fi...
wp.scn.ru/- Wingspalette
www.asisbiz.com/
free3d.com/
hum3d.com/3d-models/de-havill...
------------
FAIR-USE COPYRIGHT DISCLAIMER
* Copyright Disclaimer under Section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, allowance is made for "fair use" for purposes such as criticism, commenting, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research. Fair use is a use permitted by copyright statute that might otherwise be infringing. Non-profit, educational or personal use tips the balance in favour of fair use.
The Buzz does not own the rights to these videos and pictures. They have, in accordance with fair use, been repurposed with the intent of educating and inspiring others. However, if any content owners would like their images removed, please contact us by email at-thebuzz938@gmail.com. - Розваги
The Mosquito is powered with 2 engines (not a single engine). Sorry for this mistake.
The mistake is the mosquito 🦟 is 5th and should be 2nd 🤦🏼♂️
The thumbnail for the b24 is wrong it’s a PB4Y
And it wasn’t the back bone the b-17 was
Also the b-17 should be first
And you can bomb civilian targets it’s a war crime
That isn't a Liberator you have pictured at No.6, but the naval variant, the Privateer. The Liberator had twin vertical end-tails (save for the B-24N variant), the Privateer had a single vertical tail.
Yes
Don't worry, most of it is complete drivel
you mean the PB4Y? thats what i thought
@@robloy1842 Exactly.
The single tail version of the U.S. Navy, Consolidated Privateer was the PB4Y-2. The PB4Y-1 was the twin tail version.
I guess we’re just not going to mention the B-25 Mitchell and the fact it’s better than most bombers on this list. Maritime, ground support, plane flew darn near any mission you can think of and was a moral counter strike to pearl when we flew them off the deck of a carrier to strike mainland Japan.
It wouldve been better than the first 3. Halifax and stuka
Oh, who cares anybody that comes up with a list like this? It’s going to produce different conclusions. Lighten up.
@@davidtrindle6473 How can you not put the first American plane that bombed Japan's homeland.
The B-29 was in a class by itself. I would have left off some of the single-engine planes on this list and instead added the B-25, HE-111, and the Japanese "Betty".
Italian Savoia-Marchetti SM.79 Sparviero and some other large Italian bombers were quite adequate.
@Hoa Tattis Do you believe it would have fared worse than the #2 plane, the B-17?
@@b2tall239 The B-29 did well against Japan because it's high altitude (32K ft) and fast speed (350mph) made it difficult for the Japanese to intercept. But the Germans had fighters like the Ta-152 which could reach those altitudes and speeds. It's certain that it would have done worse against Germany than Japan. Would it have done worse than the B-17? That is less clear.
@@billsoo306 There were a total of 69 Ta-152s built. Just thought I'd point that out.
@@b2tall239 Very true. There were also FW190Ds that were also capable of that altitude though, albeit not as well.
Where the hell is the Sturmovic? Most produced bomber in history, hugely successful in combat.
Oh, I thought it was the B-24 Liberator
yeah where is it ?
Stuka,above the Lanc? sacrilege.Obsolete fighter fodder.And the Mozzy had 2 Merlin's last time I looked
The Junkers probably had a bigger overall effect, and was definitely tactically a more useful plane.
@@sundoga4961 The Mosquito was an intruder, a night fighter, a reconnaissance aircraft, anti submarine and shipping, a pathfinder and so on, the most versatile aircraft in WW2. It was very high speed, maneuverable, and could carry a single 4,000 lb bomb, or 4 x 500 lb., Some were fitted with a 57 mm cannon firing a 6lb shell and used against ships. With 8 rockets it had the hitting power of a broadside from a light cruiser. It could carry out pinpoint low level bombing missions approaching the target at a height of 50 feet, well below enemy radar. It was the most accurate bomber used in Europe, and was the most effective weapon used on the continent up to D Day, and to some extent after that. The Germans nicknamed it "the timber terror". The Stuka was a sitting target for fighters. Not so the Mosquito. It could outrun and outclimb most of them. It was highly successful against the V2 rocket. When Mustangs had to escort the Mosuitos on reconnaissance missions for the USA, the Mosquito pilots complained that the Mustangs slowed them down. The Mosquito was far superior to the Stuka, and with its high speed, long range and versatile armament it was a far more useful weapon than the Stuka.
@@ianlowery6014 totally agree with that
@@ianlowery6014 I agree. The Mosquito should have been ranked higher. I just don't agree that the Lancaster should have.
@@ianlowery6014 Not often mentioned was that it had a wooden frame that aided in speed. Timber Terror name most likely bc of this fact. Good knowledge you've shared.
The B-17 has to be one of the sexiest aircraft ever designed. Absolutely gorgeous.
Not in a million years... Mosquito by far.
It’s the b1 lancers grandfather
Ion wanna anger ppl but im gonna have to agreee dude
B-17 was nearly obsolescent going into WWII, but was tough and built in huge numbers, overcoming it's limitations. B-24 and Lancaster were technically better bombers, but B-17 got the hot PR. Same as with the Army's M-4 Sherman tank. Our side wrote the history books, and pushed the narative they wanted.
Obviously, this whole list is simply someone's opinion. NA B-25 Mitchell far surpassed the A-26 Invader, but no mention? Even the Martin B-26 Marauder surpassed the A-26.
@@lancerevell5979 Your correct the B-24 could carry a heavier load and fly further but the B-17 took more punishment than either of them could and made it back home many times that the others could not have. The B-17 could take a punch and dish it out better with its array of Brownings.therfore It was better suited for its role.
The added distance of the B-24 wasn't needed at least most of the war and its slightly faster speed didnt make up for the ruggedness of the B-17. 16mph faster might help more getting in but not getting out and top speed was not used to get in.
Just like the Mosquito. Though fast and deadly it was not better suited to high altitude daylight bombing. It was better suited as a fly under the radar precision bomber that snuck in, dropped hell maybe shot it up, and used its speed to get out quick. The only thing wrong with the mosquito was not a fitting name in my humble opinion.
Anyhow that's the problem with the thinking that faster, further and heavier bomb load is better than a slower, smaller capacity, and shorter distance bomber. Its the attributes like defensive capability and ruggedness. After all look at the A-10. Slow but packs a punch, great defense and tougher than about anything in its class.
Stuka above a lancanster and a Mossie wow your tripping , the lancaster was probably the most effective bomber in the whole of ww2 and was even the replacement for the enola gay if they couldn't get it to carry the bomb they dropped on Hiroshima
I'd say the B-29 should have ranked higher (as it did). But the B-17 should have been under both the Lancaster and the Mosquito. And the Stukka shouldn't have been on the list. Flying coffin by late 1941...
I think earlier aircraft should be given higher ratings for what they accomplished earlier in the war. The B-29 is an amazing plane, but arrived late in the war when Japan was already pretty much defeated.
The Mosquito would rank 1st for me just for the sheer audacity of missions it was capable of carrying out. Bombing Germany at night, the'd been doing that since 1940. But on January 30, 1943 the Nazis were celebrating the 10th year of coming to power in Germany. Herman Goring was to deliver a speech at a parade at 11:00 a.m. to be transmitted to the nation over radio. And so, to "demonstrate the power of the Luftwaffe to protect Germany" three Mosquito's arrived over Berlin like clockwork to disrupt the live broadcast.
No problem, Goebels was to broadcast a speech later that day to show the Nazis were not deterred.... ooops, more Mosquitos. They took the loss of one bomber on the second raid, as the Germans were ready for them.
And look up the anti-uboat version they made with a cannon in the nose. Not a regular aircraft cannon, but a modified 6 pounder anti-tank gun.
The story of it even being considered to go instead of the B-29 is a bullshit story...
Also, I kinda think that if the USAAF hadn't installed ball turrets on their bombers, their payloads would have gone way up!
My uncle flew Lancs and man did he have some awesome pictures!!!
@@chrislong3938 The Lancaster was considered if the b-29 superfortress wasn't adapted in time to carry the payload as the bomb bay was too small so lots of adaptations were being made . The B-29 had a higher ceiling speed and longer range the problem was the time to get it right. So yes the Lancaster was considered as it could easily carry the bomb so its not bullshit its history have a read up about it
@@chrislong3938 your uncle was a great man and respect for what he did and his service to his country
Stuka higher than the Lancaster? What you smokin? And as usual with these top tens US bias plays it’s part
How is it biased? There are ONLY 3 major competitors here (US, Britain and Germany.) Japan, Italy and Russia didn't have anything close to ranking in the Top Ten. You are making an apples and oranges argument, comparing a dive bomber with a heavy bomber. As usual, with these comments, someone is butt hurt their country didn't make better planes.
yeah, could have slipped in the mitchell, marauder, maryland and baltimore instead of thos yerpean things after all the ju88, tu4, pe2, il2 and gm3 did nothing of any note did they
The problem is the category is too wide. Different tools with different roles combined with the rapid weapon evolution of WWII.
@@michaeldobson107 Nah, the Stuka had a limited shelf life, was too slow and even more vulnerable to enemy fighters than most of the others in this list.
What I thought!
My grandmothers cousin Ted S Faulkner flew B24’s, B17’s and B29’s. The B24 he flew before the war with Ferry Command. He was the pilot of a B24 (40-2371) on a secret spy mission…but it was destroyed on the ground at Hickam Field Dec 7th. His navigator was instantly killed and is the first US airman to die in WWII. he flew B17’s with the 88th recon squadron pre-war (those were his squadron mates flying B17’s into Hawaii during the attack) and with the 435th Kangaroo Squadron, during which he flew the president of the Philippines to Australia in 1942 on board a B17. He later became the 468th bomb group commander (B29’s) in India in 1944. He was piloting a B29 (42-6370) on a night bombing mission to Singapore when the engine caught fire and the plane went down.
That man had a large range of historical activities for a career. It sounds like you are rightly proud of him.
The A-26 played almost no role during WW2. Why is it on this list?
It really should be the A-20, The A-20 was used by almost all allied combatants, in every theater throughout WW-2. Yet it is constantly ignored.
@@patriciastauffer3278 Your Right !
The b-26 took part. I feel like this person used Wikipedia and a kids pop-up book as source material for this video.
@@auricom8472 Yeah, there is a lot of confusion about the B-26 (Martin Marauder) and the A-26 (Douglas Invader/Intruder} The A-26 was changed to B-26 in 1948. The Douglas was a far different aircraft than the Martin. The Marauder was sometimes called the "Flying Prostitute" and other such non-flattering names due to it's handling characteristics and short wings (no visible means of support). While by the end of the war the A-26 had a very good reputation for getting it's pilots and crew home.
@@auricom8472 I think you are being too kind. This person created a video about a subject they knew little about and drew from in adequate resources.
My father was in squadran of B 24 liberator of indian air force in 1960. These aircraft were recovered from scrap by HAL india. These aircraft were dumped by USAF and RAF in chakeri kanpur up india in 1945. Total 48 aircraft were recovered and 2 bomber squadron formed by IAF. After retirement 5 aircraft were given to USA Canada and Uk for air museum. You can google it.
Yes , I have been inside the UK one , it is at Cosford Aerospace Museum . Thanks for sending this wonderful plane back to UK.
@@fredtedstedman you will see the insgenia of Indian Air squadron in the nose of aircraft.. I heard that it is still there.. thanks brother. It is still a beautiful war bird of WWII
I saw one of those birds in Pima Air Museum in Tucson Arizona.
I have toured inside the B-24 flying here in the US. Very roomy inside! I am a big guy, and literally couldn't fit in the hatch of the B-17.
@@lancerevell5979 🙏 now 5.25 am in india. Good morning...
Where is the B-25? Should be mentioned for the Dolittle raid alone!
Yes!
Yep , like the higher loss rate then the B-26 !
The German JU 88 should score way higher than the Stuka!!
Why? You are comparing two completely different roles here.
Yeah.
Agreed. After France, Stuka waned as a combat aircraft, except when the Luftwaffe seized momentary air supremacy.
German engineering didnt produce a better bomber than England or the United states. Not that they couldn't, they just didn't.
Seems also the skyraider was placed because of what it could do rather than what it did do a lot of. Imagine if the P51-D had not been used for escorts? It wouldn't have the reputation it had.
The best piston engined fighter had an British engine design in an American built plane. If anything it shows what could have been achieved had america entered the war earlier and they both completely worked together much earlier and openly!
Back to the bombers....the Mosquito was so inspiring germany tried to make one of its own and failed! Definitely one of a kind and fast!
Russian WW2 bombers were not a big part of the war. Their fighters however got better and better throughout and were probably the most underrated of the war! Most overrated were Japanese.
@@curtiswest4272 the IL-2 Sturmovik was the most-produced plane of the 2nd World War - maybe the most-produced plane, period. There was a reason for that, as the Russians were quick to drop unsatisfactory designs. Sure, the Soviets produced too few strategic bombers to make a ripple, but they had a design that could have been the classic four-engined bomber (before the Superfortress). But they didn't do "strategic," they did "tactical," so that bomber lost out. A few targeted Berlin very early in the war, with good effect, but they had too few of them. It was used as a long-range VIP transport with great effect, but you don't need fleets of those - a few will do.
My late uncle flew B-17 -G's from Kimbolton Huntshire England with the 379th Bomb Group 526th Bomb Squadron, Elsie Mae was the name of the airplane.
I had a customer in SC who had been a B-17 waist gunner in WW2. He was glad for the durability that repeatedly got them in spite of damage, although eventually they were shot down and he spent the last of the war as a P.O.W.
Kimbolton is in Bedfordshire, there is no such place as Huntshire, there's a Huntingdon which is near Kimbolton.
@@jelkel25 Kimbolton is in Cambridgeshire actually. Huntingdonshire is an old county that was swallowed up into Cambridgeshire in a post war rejig of English counties.. Kimbolton during WW2 was in Huntingdonshire
The old air field is still there, alot of it has been redeveloped into an industrial park and some of it is a racing cart track
@@KP-viking88 You are correct, slip of the keyboard and I was in that area a couple of days ago!!!
Nah! #6 It's not a B24 Liberator. It's a Privateer.
Yeah.
Same basic aircraft just different tail. PB4Y-1 Liberator, PB4Y-2 Privateer.
wow not having B 25 Mitchell on this list is a travesty...
Much better as a war-winner were either the B-25 or the A-20
True they had the best survival rate of any bomber during world war II
Wot - No Fairey Swordfish. Sank more shipping than any other WW2 aircraft
Wouldn’t argue about the tonnage but I thought that the Sunderland sank more individual targets than the Swordfish,the Sunderland definitely deserves a place ahead of some of the lesser American varieties-have the Americans heard of it?
Find it hard to believe that the Fairey Swordfish sank more tonnage than any other aircraft. Obsolete, slow bi-plane with limited range. Hmmm, wonder why the Royal Navy equipped their carriers with American aircraft during the war? Oh, thats right! The Royal Navy didn't have its own aviation arm. The Royal Air Force controlled the development of RN aircraft in the Fleet Air Arm; the worst group of aircraft ever designed for carrier operations! Not putting down the FAA or RN, just stating fact. Naval aircraft require different requirements than Air Force aircraft. U.S. had their own problems with this; F-111B was a total failure.
@@frankrowland I have heard of the Short Sunderland and it was an outstanding aircraft.
Sorry dude. I'm not nominating an aircraft with "Fairey" in the name. Just doesn't speak "weapon" to me.
@@patrickmccrann991 Apparently ship AA gunners struggled to get a bead on the Swordfish, due to its slow speed.
Awesome quality video
Except that the numbers on all the photos are backwards.
So, what is the grading scale used to define the top ten bombers of WW II? I see no hint that this is a subjective list: the B29 is a great airplane, but saw the least amount of combat time of any airplane on this list. Define how you are using the term "range"? In most applications that would mean the distance from take off to target. In this list, its use is all over the place. The top speeds for the Lancaster, B24, B17 and the Halifax are all extremely over stated. Some guy at a drawing board may have thought these could fly that fast, but the reality is, speeds in excess of 200 mph for all of them were either unobtainable with a full load, or made the air frame so unstable that the plane would fly apart. The graphics for the B24 are a mess. The illustrated model shown with the statistics isn't even a B24 model, it is a YB24 built in minimal numbers and used only by the Navy for shore patrol> It in fact was a second class bomber, intended instead as a spotter plane and to do machine gun based air to surface attacks, Even the model shown flying is a D model that saw European combat in limited numbers, The true B24 model that should be shown would b the J model that had the most units in operation, superior defensive fire power, a longer range and heavier bomb load. The B26 was an inferior airplane to the B25, but not by much. But to infer that it an anyway was the equivalent of a Mosquito bomber is ludicrous. The B26 bomb load, air speed, range and maneuverability are all significantly inferior to the Mosquito. The B26 may have been pressed into some bombing missions similar to the Mosquito, but it was hardly the equal.
Basically, this video is a poorly researched mess.
The Lancaster’s payload was up to 20,000 lbs, Flying Fortress’ was 4,500 lbs. And you put it first on your list?
Your Right !
Folks confuse special purpose Lancasters with those doing run of the mill missions. According to many sources, the vast majority of -17, -24 and Lancaster missions over Germany all carried near the same bomb load. If you are using special purpose numbers, the Fort could carry around 7000 lbs internally and externally.
Let's talk about Lancs vs Forts vs Libs: The Lancaster had good range IF it didn't have to haul 4 or 5 tons up past 20,000 feet, something the B-17 did on a daily basis. In daylight. Lancs fought at night because if caught in daytime they got shot down. The Lanc couldn't take a hit. And when it did get shot up it was difficult for the crew to get out. A lot of Lanc guys went down with their airplane because they weren't able to exit the airplane once it was stricken. Oh, payload... The B-17 carried over a ton anna half (or more, depending on what the ground crews did via modifications) of just the defensive armament of machine guns and ammo. That adds up. What did the Lanc carry? Then there's durability. Many B-17s returned home with holes shot through the engines which had continued running for hours. Shoot holes in a Merlin and its life span is minutes, not hours. Not criticizing the Merlin (or the Allison etc) but they were fragile in that they're liquid cooled. A P-47 returned home after a rough ride with holes shot through 9 of the 18 cylinders of its air cooled R-2800 radial, and 4 holes through the prop. It landed with No oil left in the engine's oil tanks, most of which was spread over the entire fuselage. And it still managed to stay in the air for the return journey home. Ground crew stopped counting bullet holes on the a/c after they went past 100. Durability certainly has its own say in the overall effectiveness of ANY combat aircraft. The B-17 has it in spades; the Lanc not so much. THAT is why the Lanc only flew night missions because the RAF didn't have enough of them to waste on daylight ops. Sing the praises of the Lanc if you will, but the B-17 was more effective. It's as simple as that. Last notes: Belly land a B-24 and it was only good for spare parts. Likewise, belly land a Lanc, same thing. Belly land a B-17 and it was often flying again in less than a week... as long as the crew dropped the ball turret so the landing wouldn't "break the airplane's back". And the B-17's Wright R-1820 was a rougher engine than the B-24's silky smooth PW R-1830 but in a belly landing the PW often got its crankcase busted when the prop hit the ground. The Wright engine stood up, prop would take the hit and get bent into a pretzel, and after a new prop the engine usually would run again. I won't talk more about how the B-17 was a better flier than either the Lanc or the Liberator... already been discussed for years. Add to this some of the pilots who didn't much care for the drafty B-24, what with the nose wheel that made life miserable for the cockpit crew in the North Africa desert campaign because of the breezes that sent dust kicked up by the nose wheel swirling everywhere on takeoff and landing. Thus, by the luck of the draw, the B-17's design avoided many of the Lib and the Lanc pitfalls encountered during wartime operations.
How can the B17 be better than the Lancaster, with a smaller bomb load and shorter range?
Better defensive armament?
It does be *American,* fella *. . .*
@@letoubib21 and that's your criteria,cos it be American?
@@stevenbreach2561 What are *you* thinking what I think? *;-)*
Better PR. America wrote the most history books. Even my being American, I recognise favoritism when I see it.
FYI, the B-24 Liberator was the most manufactured bomber of World War 2. The Avro Lancaster was superb as it was the one that could deliver the Grand Slam and Tall Boy bombs on German Battleships like the Tirpitz, Underground Submarine Pens, and other hard targets.
The B-17 should could take a lot of punishment from German fighters and flak but it only came into its own when it was escorted by the P-51 Mustang.
There was no perfect bomber at this stage. Liberator's high wing made setting down on water dangerous - not good for an aircraft with so many over ocean missions. Lancaster had rather small exit hatches (Like the Liberator, this was detrimental to crew survival). B17 had a poor bomb payload for a bomber of its size - but great defensive armament.
B29 gets the 4 engine formula almost right, just a few years before we enter the jet age.
Ultimately, crew quality is more important than the minor differences between similar aircraft designs.
@@steveholmes11
I understand the Liberator was quite instrumental in covering up the notorious gap in the North Atlantic where Nazi U Boats sunk many Allied convoy ships. It was very helpful in identifying and destroying many U Boats and helped to destroy their naval supremacy.
What is interesting was that there was no mass manufactured Nazi four engine heavy bomber as there was none. As a result, the Soviets were able to mass produce weapons, ammunition, T-34 tanks, artillery and warplanes without the fear of being bombed out of existence as they had relocated their factories out of Nazi bombing range.
There is no perfect bomber unless you have fighter escort except for the B-52 bomber.
I read a few comments now and i see a lot of them hate the ju 87 for being trash in the late war but forget that in most time there where very effective and in the end when german air superiority was completly gone they served as tankkillers and there were effective too.
It was a good aircraft at every stage in the war but no bomber can shine without help from fighters and germany learned that the hard way in the battle of britan none of these bombers could be effective on its own.
At the end this plane is one of the best ww2 planes overall not just in case of a bomber its one of the most effective planes in the entire war
AVRO Lancaster, greatest bomber ever built, bar none!!
😂🤣😝🤪
You know what you never see when people who think they know what they're talking about?? Facts!! And you never hear about the B-26 Marauder..
That was a hell of an airplane, not only is always over looked it actually was an better airplane than the B-25 in so many aspects. The marauder had twice as many missions than the 25 it had a higher survivability than the 25 it brought more crew's back than the 25 and buy the end of the war had out preformed the 25 and in the pacific war even the B-24 in some aspects. It was an unbelievable aircraft and my opinion did more to win the war...sadly it is always overlooked.
Lancaster was the major bomber of WW11
Included in this list is A-26, which was irrelevant and, for example, PE-2, which was very relevant on the eastern front, is excluded.
I remember seeing Douglass A26s still being used in Alberta Canada, for forest fire fighting, back in the 80's .
Stuka at No3? They were slow as hell and that easy to shoot down, even the nazis gave up on them eventually.
Well it was an aircraft from the 30s. It even made it to the Spanish Civil War from 1936-39. So yeah by 41 it’s outdated and needs replaced.
@@kadenvolan3557 The Stuka is a great aircraft if nothing else comparable is in the air. Slow, not very maneuverable. Built to have one outstanding attribute, its dive bombing accuracy. But less than effective once enemy fighter planes were present in the war zone.
Is the A-10 Warthog a good aircraft? Yes it’s an outstanding ground attack aircraft. However as soon as It encounters fighters it’s screwed, does this make it a bad aircraft, No. The Stuka is a dive bomber by design so obviously it’s not going to fare against fighters. The B-24 liberator doesn’t stand a chance against any fighters, that’s why they had P-51 escorts. Your the type of person to get mad at an M36 Jackson For not being able to shoot down aircraft, it’s not what it was designed to do.
@@kadenvolan3557 No, I think you miss read what I'm saying here: The Stuka did a lot of war damage and seemed like a super weapon, but mostly because it used a previously little explored way to attack targets and had no opposition in the skies. The B24 wasn't any more vulnerable to fighter attack than any other heavy bomber of the war. It was more difficult to fly than the B17, and had a low crew survival rate (compared to the B17) in art because little consideration was given during design of crew escape in emergency situations. That said, it had a higher flight speed, longer range and carried a heavier bomb load than the B17, but only marginally so. And despite what the chart with this article suggests, it was faster than the Lancaster in actual service. The Lancaster dominated in payload and possible range of operation.
What I would really like to see, is what the fundamental system this video's maker sued to develop a top ten? most damage inflicted? Most units made? Strategic significance? Just what exactly is the standard they are measuring these planes against?
Oh, and the Warthog is a great plane too. It might actually survive being attacked by a modern fighter plane better than you might expect. The A1 was great airplane too, the predecessor of the A10.
@@kadenvolan3557 Spitfires and Hurricanes shot them to pieces in the Battle of Britain.
your videos have a high quality and good information
Please make a video on The best AWACS systems in the world.
Tough to list Classifications together: Dive Bomber - Single Engine; Fighter - Single Engine; Fighter - Twin Engine; Fighter Bomber - Single & Twin Engine; Bomber - Twin Engine & Bomber - Four Engine. Also - Rocket - Fighter and Jet - Fighter & Fighter Bomber.
Mossie should be number one for it's sheer versatility. And what on earth is the Ju. 87 doing on this list? I know it's iconic, but it's also one of the most over-rated aircraft of all time. To represent the Luftwaffe, you should have included the Ju. 88, a truly magnificent aircraft.
Good video
Interesting. The comments below are interesting too. Someone mentioned the Betty bomber, but what about the highly successful Val dive bomber and the Kate torpedo bomber. They sank a lot of ships! Anyway, thanks for this video!
Love you voice very much
And from which country you belong . please tell me 🙏🙏
And as usual, nothing Soviet. Where is IL-2, IL-4, PE-2?
Because like most Soviet stuff they couldn't compete with aircraft from the other Allied air forces.
@@EvilMerlin are you serious?😂 Read the technical characteristics of Soviet aircraft or the stories of German pilots.
In terms of cumulative attrition the VVS was a persistent drain on Luftwaffe resources. In terms of individual aircraft and combat effectiveness, not so much. Typical Russian and German day bombers couldn’t have stayed operational in the West, it was a much more lethal environment.
@@user-Stepan51 Check out the number of bombs dropped vs. other allied planes. Or the amount of missions flew. Yeah the IL-2 and PE-2 are much better than other Soviet weapons... but it still cannot touch anything on this list.
USA GAYS EJJEEJEJEJEJ
Also the one pictured for the B-24 on the chart, is not a B-24, it displayed a Chinese PB4Y-2 Privateer
Was surprised to see the dauntless and avenger on the list, I was also surprised to see the liberator so low, and Flying Fortress at the #2 spot.
An unemotional list in my minds eye would place it below the Lib and the Lancaster. Emotionally for me it’s #1 with Lancaster #2. If I picture the RAF from the war it’s a lanc and spitfire, and the B17 the allies Sexiest bomber.
The Dauntless killed plenty of ships, especially carriers.
@@timclaus8313 yes it did, it was a bit of prejudice on my part when I saw this. I just didn’t think of single engine planes as ‘bombers’
@@jeffreyrobinson3555 Fair assessment, probably better to consider them as attack planes rather than bombers.
I agree completely, and I wouldn't complain if Lancaster took #1. As impressive as the B29 was, you gotta dock it points for missing the majority of the war and the European theatre. The B17 was certainly sexy. . . but it wasn't, uh very efficient. Very expensive aircraft in terms of resources and lives lost. You can blame some of it on dangerous daylight bombing tactics But not all. It's record is very mixed compared to the Lancaster. B17 is certainly below the Liberator.
number 7 on the roll of honour is the haliax b3 from 158 sqn. stationed at raf lissett....................excellent
Your info on the Mosquito power plant one Rolls Royce Merlin engine ? Are you sure about that shurely shome mishtake
2...v12s
No better sound overhead than the throaty roar of twin Mighty Merlins!
@@lancerevell5979 I hear 4..once or twice a week...from the Lancaster that flys out of Hamilton airport..it's quite something...I can't imagine what a hundred lancasters would have sounded like.
umm what did it say about the avenger after the sinking of the battleships?!!?
Love the Mosquitto stats 1 rolls royce merlin when even an idiot can see its a twin. Very US oriented so I expect the video to get worse.
Agreed, but they clarified their mistake in the comments. As for being US oriented, can you supply the names of other bombers, and your reasons why they supersede the American planes listed?
The B29 was flown exclusively not primarily by the US during WW2. Post war some were loaned to the British.
The B-17 may have been the most produced heavy bomber in WW2, but it was hardy the best. It lacked a decent bomb load and range compared to other heavy bombers.
Your remarks are easily refuted by a simple trip to Wikipedia. The B-17 was capable of carrying as much as the Lanc on similar missions, depending on the distance required. The Lanc had around 2500 miles of range, while the B-17 could manage almost 3000 with a 4000 lb bomb load. People tend to forget that the B-17 flew a lot of deep penetration missions where they carried just 4000-4500 lb bomb loads (and a ton ann a half of armament) while the rest of its standard 20,000 lifting capacity was fuel in order to go the distance. A B-17 carrying max fuel was capable of almost 3700 miles of range but with hardly any bomb load. Short missions allowed as much as 8000 lb loads, and in extreme instances with external shackle mounted ordinance (yes the B-17 had the ability to carry underwing bombs) the B-17 could lift almost 17,000 lbs of payload but range did suffer doing it. All in all, when considering the missions the Lanc flew as compared to what the B-17 flew, their performance was pretty much equal. This is not including the Tallboy and Grand Slam missions which required the Lanc to be cut/modified as well as lightened in order to mount the bomb and carry it far enough to reach an enemy target.
Oh... and let's not forget that it was a think tank in an office in Washington and NOT military technicians that cooked up the notion of a Lancaster mounting an atomic bomb if for some reason the B-29 wasn't readied in time. After comparing the two airplanes' speed, altitude, and range performance capabilities and factoring in the mission requirements it was clear that the Lanc simply was not up to the job and the notion of the Lanc actually carrying an a-bomb to Japan was dismissed.
I'll shaddap now...
You showed the PB4Y Privateer, not the B24 Liberator
Where are the soviet attack and bomber aircrafts such Il-2 and Pe-2???
Out of the top 10 ,that where .
@@majorneptunejr Objectively they should be in the top 10.
Especially the PE-2, pretty damned good medium bomber that never got its due.
Stuka
What about Arado Ar 234 Blitz?
With an engine lifespan of just hours it was hardly the most serviceable
Only a small number build, no influence on the war.
Far too little, far too late. Only served minimally as a recon plane at war's end. Technically interesting though. Had it enterred service two years earlier......
Failed completely in it´s mission to blow up the Remagen bridge.
Since when did the Mosquito only have one engine! 🙄
Only when one engine was shot out.😏
Search for 'B-29 carrying 2 Grand Slam bombs". Yeah, 2......Anyways I appreciate the excellent pictures on this video. The order of merit, not so much..
Miss. The TBF Avenger had 2 front-facing.50 cal, 1 .50 cal in the rear, and 1 .30 cal on the bottom of the aircraft.
Japan had 4 aircraft carriers at the Battle of Midway.
3:44 - OK, what plane is this since it it's the Liberator
For reference ( creazilla-store.fra1.digitaloceanspaces.com/cliparts/26077/b-24-j-bomber-clipart-md.png )
Found it: The Consolidated PB4Y-2 Privateer was a modification and fully "navalized" version of the Navy's slightly modified version of the B-24, aka PB4Y-1 Liberator.
I'm starting to remember why I thought these videos were a joke.
Why is all the lettering/numbers on the drawings on backwards?
That's not a B-24. It's a PBY4 the Navy version that was used mainly for patrol duties.
I noticed there were almost no Axis a/c on this list... the Ju-87 did likely deserve a spot since it was very effective early on when it had top cover... and it needed top cover like any other attack bomber aircraft of the times but unfortunately Deutsch air superiority was lost later in the war, and still the venerable Stuka continued to serve as an effective ground attack plane. And the He-111 should have been there as well. There were also a couple of fine medium bombers the Soviets fielded during WW-II. Slam the Stuka if you will, but the adage still stands; you fight a war with what you have and not with what you want. The Ju-87 was an older design that still managed to make a good account of itself with the right man at the stick... like Rudel.
Ju-87 was a shocking plane from the start of the war to be honest, so much so that during The Battle of Britain they had to recall them from service because of how much the RAF was destroying them.
Medium and heavy level bombers only. No dive bombers or torpedo planes.
B29
B17
Lancaster
Ju88
Betty
B26
B24
Mosquito
Halifax
PE2
This was so full of inaccuracies and errors that one scarcely knows where to begin. While it was a fine aircraft (but not the easiest to master), the A-26 saw limited use in WWII for the sole reason that it was introduced rather late in the war. It's predecessor, the A-20 (Havoc/Boston) saw much more and much wider use. It was most definitely NOT the American counterpart to the Mosquito (and it was not meant to be) as it was never used in the intruder or night fighter roles nor in the anti shipping role. About the only American aircraft that can be compared to the Ju 88 might be the B-25 (and that based solely on the versatility of both aircraft). The armament of the Avenger started out with one .50 cal. and 2x.30 cal. mgs but was later changed to 3x.50 cal. and one .30 cal. mg. Japanese "strike ships"??? Try "Fleet Aircraft Carriers"! A "Strike ship" is not a classification of warship that existed in WWII (or even now... possibly in the "Star Trek" universe!). The B-24 you show is NOT a B-24 Liberator. That is a Privateer, which is a derivative of the B-24 produced for the U.S. Navy. It is also well known that the B-24 was built by MANY companies in many locations in the U.S. (not just San Diego) Try Willow Run, Michigan, for a start! I could go on but you should get the point by now. If you put out videos with such "slip-shod" research, you will be taken to task.
And there were some other faults, in fact too many to write them *. . .*
Agreed - the number of errors and lack of research and fact checking here is painful to listen to.
B-25 Mitchell; firebombed tokyo under command of Doolittle?
And clobbered Japanese shipping! A superbly capable ship killer, especially once upgunned.
"firebombed". Lol. Not really.
Depuis le Sénégal 🇸🇳
The illustration of the B-24 is not a Liberator is it? Note the single fin and blister on the side. Also, one of the pics during the Halifax segment is a Lanc. Just sayin…
Excelente trabajo investigativo, felicitaciones.
You dont know, obviasly, nothing about bombers of ww2, unless if you are joking... This list, is completly mess... Made by amater...
I always thought the A26 was an underrated airplane.
General Kenney, Commander of the Far East Air Force stated " We do not want the A-26 under any circumstances as a replacement for anything". It did almost nothing during WW2 and should not be on this list.
The Mosquito is a twin engine aircraft
A Twin Engine Fighter Bomber - Wood ( In a Class of its own ); At time the Fastest. Class in itself.
Lancaster number 1
Where are the B-25 Mitchell and B-26 Marauder?
Some of your graphics are wrong. Ie: tail of the 24
She show the PB4Y-2 Privateer, a modification of B-24 that used for maratime patrol, so yeah, wrong model
The B24 was used to bomb the Ploesti Oil fields. I think it was because it had superior range.
I think the b-17 and b-24 should be ranked higher than the b-29 because they did the majority of the bombing in ww2. The b-29 may have been superior but it wasn’t introduced until 1944 and both of the aforementioned bombers had served for years prior. Just my opinion.
I don't think the Stuka should be at 3.
ANYBODY notice the art picture when she was describing the lanc it had bristol hercules engines
Some Lancs did indeed get fitted with Bristol Herc engines.
Ah mosquito has 1 engine, she gonna try convince us the b-29 is a fighter to?
Wait the SBD Dauntless was a Dive Bomber not Torpedo Bomber 2:21
the Lancaster was superior to the to the B17 in just about every way , other than that the list is about right
İt is wooden plane WOODEN. No armour and it can flight only nights. B17 a real flying fortress, Fuselage landings, tailless flights, pierced wings and more. Unique defensive equipment. The only thing that makes the Lancaster superior is its bomb load. This can only happen if you make a plane out of wood. If the B17 was made of wood, it would be useless like the lancaster, but it would have a higher bomb load. The Lancaster could not fly during the day and was vulnerable to even the slightest damage.
@@doguesrefoglu4865 Superior bomb load in a bomber is a bit of a biggy don't you think, a lot of people would argue the toss with you and there is always radar signature that being wooden as you say helps a little
@@doguesrefoglu4865 If you think that the Lancaster didn't fly any daytime missions you are seriously misinformed, yes it was a nighttime strategic bomber but also a daytime precision bomber, if i'm not mistaken (which i'm not ) operation chastise was the bravest and most famous raid against Germany in WW11 and that was carried out by Lancaster's , maybe that was because the B17 couldn't do the job because the bomb was too heavy or the distance was too far, yes the Lancaster out ranged the B17 too.
But like you say in a very insulting uninformed manner the Lancaster was a shit bomber , are you American by any chance
The A-26 was not the bomber, it was the ground attack variant of the B-26 bomber.
There was no tbf it was tbd in the battle of midway
I think that the US should have gotten a license to mass produce long range de Havilland Mosquitoes during WW2 for the Allied air forces and not produced the B17. When a slow, lumbering, fuel guzzling B17 was lost, 10 men were killed, injured, or captured. The Mosquitoes were fast and would have been so numerous that the Luftwaffe wouldn't have been nearly as effective. The B17 was not a super fortress; it was a super target.
😂😂😂
They should have separated out the various bomber types. There is no real comparison between a JU-87 and a Lancaster, but you can compare a JU-87 with an SBD or an Aichi D3A. The Lancaster was a fine machine, but better or as good as a B-29, as some seem to think, no way
Nobody literrary nobody:
American engineers:
You see that bunker there make it fly
How about the Russian Il-2 or Pe-2?
yes the top 10 is very "american" , the A-26 shouldn't be in there, no Japanese or italian aircraft, and how could youleave out the Ju-88?
The title says bombers, the Stuka and US navy dive bombers are not in the same class as two and four engine bombers.
No B25 Mitchell?
JU-88 and Martin B-26 should have been on the list. Douglas A-26 did not belong. It was too late in the war and General Kenny didn't even want them in the Pacific.
The logic behind the choices escapes me. As far as importance, the B24 and B17 outrank the B29, as they were there for the duration. If you take into the various rolls the B24, and Halifaxes performed, An argument could be made for them being higher ranked, than the B17 and Lancaster. As for the torpedo bombers, the Beaufighter, may have been more important than the TBF. In dive bombers, the Val, Stuka, and SBD, are pretty much equal in overall contributions during the war. I think it would be better to have the list subdivided into dive, torpedo, light, medium, and heavy bombers with two of each type, to get your top ten.
Example: My list (Val, and SBD,) (Beaufighter and TBF,) (Mosquito and A-26,) (B-25 and Wellington,) and (Halifax and B-24.) The B29 may have been the bomber to end the war, but it was late to the party, (so to speak.) The first B29 strikes were not until June 1944.
I think there is way better options as of the best bombers of ww2 like the ju-88 or a Soviet strategic bomber
It makes no sense to mix up CAS like Ju 87 with medium and heavy bombers
To be fair the mosquito 🦟 should of been 2nd as for me it was the best all round aircraft of ww2 look at the operations it did how it was made bomb load & speed just spectacular
icecoffee 13: I would agree with you about the Mosquito. My father was an Eighth Air Force B24 pilot that had his squadron decommissioned. He was offered the chance to transfer to the Mosquito unit that flew off the same air field. He had one test flight in which the pilot barrel rolled the Mossie at an altitude that barely cleared the wingtips, and that happened before they were past the end of the air field. My father declined the offer. To him, that was the greatest airplane he had ever seen. But he was used to piloting, in his word, "flying dump trucks", not these hot rodded sort of airplanes.
@@cdjhyoung your father sounds a true legend and his description of the B24 is class. I had a great uncle who flew a B24 in coastal command unfortunately his plane crashed and everyone died bar a New Zealander who survived near Tavistock U.K.
@@icecoffee1361 My dad's crew had reunions about every ten years. I remember one time they toasted to the fact none of them earned a Purple Heart. They flew in a squadron with the highest loss rate of the European theater, but manged to get home with our any of the ten of them getting injured in action. In fact, my brother came across a book by a waist gunner that noted as his missions counted down to 48, with 50 being the magic number, he got assigned to Lt Young's crew for his last two missions and he knew he would make it home.
Luck is often what you get by being prepared. My dad's crew was in the last group of fliers to train at Lincoln, Nebraska. Their instructors were veterans of flying in Europe, and tried to share what they had learned. Staying the in air was more than not getting shot down: the mission were so deep into Germany in the spring/summer of 1944, fuel management was huge issue. The flight engineer, co-pilot and my dad spent their air time in Nebraska figuring out how they could stretch the gas in the plane to gain more hours of flight time. This saved them as they ferried their B24 to Scotland, as they were the only plane at both Greenland and Scotland not in desperate need of landing. In fact, my dad's flight engineer reported so much fuel left in their tanks, they were ordered to land at their destination air field north of London instead of refueling in Scotland. This served them well, because after the squadron was disbanded they ended up flying radio and radar interference missions. These missions required the crews to maximize how long they could stay on duty station in hours of flying.
He once shared with me that his crew suspected that they may have been the only airplane in the air on the third night of the Battle of the Bulge when the weather socked in so badly.
@@cdjhyoung amazing account the fact he survived ww2 after all those missions is a miracle,it’s so easy to over look how difficult it was to fly to Germany on a mission and then get back safely and how many young men never saw their family & friends again. Living now is so easy compared to the 1940s and they where the greatest generation from the Great Depression to ww2 a lot happened in a short space of time for them.
Also where’s the IL-2 (Flying Tank) and PE-2? Not to mention “Lancaster” wasn’t the name, it was “Lincoln”
The Lancaster and Lincoln are 2 different planes, with the Lincoln being an upgraded Lancaster with better engines and better defensive armament
@@E.hexzor And the IL-2 wasn't a bomber *. . .*
@@E.hexzor yea so the Lincoln should be on the list not Lancaster?
No because the Lincoln was post ww2
The Mosquito was a twin engine plane..not the single engine you have it listed as..the pics should have given you a HUGE clue
And is NOT a "shoulder wing" design. It is midwinged. Looking at my latest scale model of it now. My 64 years gives me my own opinions, but tempered by studying the history and technology of aircraft.
B25 Mitchell? Junkers 88? Heinkel 111? Mitsubishi Judy? B26 Marauder? Bristol Beaufort? A20 Boston?
I wonder what statistics they used to come to these conclusions? Ignoring the B-20, the Betty, Heinkel 111, and mostly the B-25. I love the A-26, but it was barely used in the war; Like the Douglas SkyRaider - both excellent planes, but they barely sniffed the war.
My preferate is the Mosquito.
Which is better American and British bombers of WW2 ??
For me, 1-5 is B-29, Lanc, Mosquito, B-17, then B-25.
Where are: Arado Ar 234, Junkers Ju 188, Consolitated B-32, Tupolev TU -2...
Top 10. The Ar 234 barely made it into the war. The Ju188 didn't fly well and carried a small bomb load, the B-32 was barely used at all in the war, and wasn't well liked due to noise and vibration, and the Tu2 would probably be the only aircraft even close to the top 10.
B-32, wow, don’t hear much about that one.
@@EvilMerlin we are speaking of best!
@@Jjuurraa Which is why the Ar 234 (limited supply, horrible engines, limited range, limited load) didn't make this list.
@@EvilMerlin Ar 234 had a potencial, to be best... and this plane was produced.... Dauntless, Avenger... Ju 87, Il-2 and another garbage... were useful, but not best... and we are speaking of best... ;-) and Dauntless against Ar 234.. no chance...
All these bombs dropped. Do they know if they hit anything?
Pe-2 ???????
3:33 PB4Y-2 not B-24
The A-26 should not be on this list honestly. A-20 “Havoc” or B-25 Mitchelle even the Pe-2 are much better twin engine medium or light bombers. A-26 is possibly the best propeller driven bomber bomber to have a long career but it had more impact down the line than in WW2.
Also seeing some shade about the B-26 Marauder, it had the lowest combat loss rate of all allied bombers so it wasn’t all bad even with a widow maker title for new pilots